We performed a comparison between IBM FlashSystem and NetApp Private Storage based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two NAS solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The FlashSystem 900 consistently delivers performance below 1ms for read/write. This performance is essential for an effective SVC stretch-cluster configuration across two datacenters, and presenting active-active storage to the customer."
"The performance of IBM FlashSystem is very good. The new technology and high throughput have given us more confidence in the solution. The management of the system has improved and we can control the monitoring system alerts and multiple FlashSystems with the Enterprise Cloud Edition, which is free. The migration of recently stored data to a new flash is much easier. You can move your data because you can utilize it externally."
"The pricing is reasonable."
"IBM FlashSystem is a stable solution."
"The most valuable features are, of course, the virtualization of the storage, the performance, and the compression."
"FlashSystem offers proven technology in a compact package."
"Most of the features for the reduction in data compression are useful. It is also very easy to use and administer. Its performance is also good."
"The installation is nice and easy."
"The most valuable feature of NetApp Private Storage is out-of-the-box integration with the SAN switches. They are much easier compared to Dell solutions. Additionally, the connector that comes with the solution that allows connection back to the Cisco SAN switches is very good. In Dell, I would need to use an FCIP or CIP port that is required."
"Very stable and very scalable."
"As opposed to cloud, we have full control over security, use, who uses it. We own a number of different companies, so we can partition however we want."
"NetApp is faster than other storage brands."
"It gave us a platform which could clearly arrange all our files and volumes."
"The solution scales well."
"Disaster recovery. And I like the security very much. I think they have the needed options for security. Can manage NPS using the same tools and process that we use today."
"NetApp has really added a lot of features over the years to improve the product and performance. They can do things now like control ingress. They can control egress."
"The technical support in my region is satisfactory but it could improve. Support is very important for customers and downtime is very critical for us. We would like onsite or complete technical support which can help us to minimize our downtime or if problems occur."
"This solution could be improved by offering greater amounts of storage."
"Sometimes the performance is effective but it gets resolved in the process."
"The solution should improve its pricing and the mechanism in the reduction pool."
"The storage capacity of this solution could be improved."
"I would like to have a larger disk. Right now, you can get 57 terabytes in a shelf. Once they get the larger disk and you get larger capacities, it'll be even better."
"I have looked at a few pages of a report I download and I saw a graph there regarding software-defined vendors. IBM is not in a good position on this graph. I know that they are working very hard on this, to make it much better and to get to a level where it's not only hardware but also software to provide a complete solution."
"The price is very costly."
"The hardware does not last as long as it could with new software."
"I think that it should work better with Microsoft solutions, more integrated with Microsoft. We also need integrated NAS and block storage."
"NetApp Private Storage is still integrated into the ISCSI connectivity and the FC protocol. I would recommend them to migrate to the FCIP because the SAN switches are moving further to an FCIP, and are scaling out of the ISCSI connectivity. Sooner or later, that will be an issue for NetApp Private Storage. An NFCIP should be available to them moving three years down the line."
"I would like to have the Active-Active feature. Some competitors already have it. I would like NetApp to add it to stay competitive."
"I'm not sure how easy it is to use on the cloud versus on-prem. If they have different user experiences, they should work to make the two as similar as possible to make it easy for a user to understand both even if they only deal mainly with one."
"We had to write a number of custom tools or scripts ourselves to use it as a staging area between our on-premises datacenter and our cloud installation."
"There may actually be so many features that the end-user gets lost in the volume."
"There is room for improvement in the support. It has been a problem for our team."
IBM FlashSystem is ranked 4th in NAS with 106 reviews while NetApp Private Storage is ranked 12th in NAS with 14 reviews. IBM FlashSystem is rated 8.2, while NetApp Private Storage is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of IBM FlashSystem writes "An easy GUI and simple provisioning but our model does not support compression". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetApp Private Storage writes "Integrates well, useful connectors, and straightforward implemention". IBM FlashSystem is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Pure Storage FlashArray, Dell Unity XT, NetApp AFF and Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform, whereas NetApp Private Storage is most compared with Dell PowerScale (Isilon) and NetApp FAS Series. See our IBM FlashSystem vs. NetApp Private Storage report.
See our list of best NAS vendors.
We monitor all NAS reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
